Separatist Billboards

[graveyardofempires]

Separatist Billboards

November 17, 2008 The most disturbing part is that the PPP government, which came to power in Islamabad through an arrangement exclusively brokered by Washington, is unwilling to confront the Americans. Now we have 40-feet wide billboards that have mysteriously sprung up on the main roads of NWFP [picture courtesy of BrassTacks] showing the map of a new country – Pashtunistan – with meticulously defined borders that incorporate most of northwestern Pakistan. The Pakistani Pashtun, the bravest and the most loyal subjects of the Pakistani state, are being pushed toward separatism with full speed. This ‘billboard campaign’ has to be the boldest statement of rebellion and separatism ever made in the history of nation-states anywhere in the world. Yet it’s business as usual in Islamabad. How long will the Pakistani state continue on this path of self destruction?
Read Full Article | Ahmed Quraishi

[شمله ور خراساني]

I am all in favor of disintegration of Pakistan as a state. On one condition. That the newly formed government is an Islamic government with Shariah law.

So far, all I see is these secularist pimps (ANP) hijacking the image of Pashtuns for their own agenda.

[Alchemist]

let's do it ...

I don't even care what you call it.

Afghanistan can't survive otherwise.

[randolph85]

I am all in favor of disintegration of Pakistan as a state. On one condition. That the newly formed government is an Islamic government with Shariah law.

So far, all I see is these secularist pimps (ANP) hijacking the image of Pashtuns for their own agenda.

as unfavorable as these "nationalist" parties are. what have any of the "religious" parties done? i don't see any pashtun religious parties against the concept of pakistan.

[Michin Khel]

These separatist billboards were attempt by MMA to defame ANP.

[شمله ور خراساني]

as unfavorable as these "nationalist" parties are. what have any of the "religious" parties done? i don't see any pashtun religious parties against the concept of pakistan.

A Pashtun Islamic party would be an Un-Islamic party. There cannot be an Islamic party based on ethnicity.

Muslims should unite upon tawhid. Not upon ethnicity or false notions of nation states and arbitrary borders drawn by Englishmen and Frenchmen.

[Michin Khel]

A Pashtun Islamic party would be an Un-Islamic party. There cannot be an Islamic party based on ethnicity.

Muslims should unite upon tawhid. Not upon ethnicity or false notions of nation states and arbitrary borders drawn by Englishmen and Frenchmen.

You are very good muslim, you want muslims of pakistan to suffer.

[شمله ور خراساني]

You are very good muslim, you want muslims of pakistan to suffer.

Are you saying that the kufri regime of Pakistan prevents Pakistani Muslims from suffering?

The government is the very reason why there is so much misery in Pakistan. It is the apostate rulers and their British laws and corruption that is opressing millions of people.

It is because of this very ruling class, the inheritors of the colonial government that Pakistan is such a dump.

Despite their military and their nukes, the country cannot afford to feed its hungry citizens.

How is the descturction of this regime of kufr and shirk detrimental for Muslims?

When one is infected by a disease how can the disease prevent one from dying?

It is the disease that needs to be cured. And the disease in Pakistan is its government and the ruling class.

Once they are gone, and once the country is ruled by Muslim and not by apostates, we can only then expect improvements.

[Niazi]

I am all in favor of disintegration of Pakistan as a state

بيگرش كه نگيرد

[randolph85]

A Pashtun Islamic party would be an Un-Islamic party. There cannot be an Islamic party based on ethnicity.

Muslims should unite upon tawhid. Not upon ethnicity or false notions of nation states and arbitrary borders drawn by Englishmen and Frenchmen.

groups are usually based on geographical considerations. hence, the taliban are mostly pashtun.

so let me rephrase the question, why are there no religious parties against the concept of pakistan? even the paki taliban have not spoken against the concept of the state.

[شمله ور خراساني]

groups are usually based on geographical considerations. hence, the taliban are mostly pashtun.

so let me rephrase the question, why are there no religious parties against the concept of pakistan? even the paki taliban have not spoken against the concept of the state.

Thats a good question.

As far as I know, many religious figures in Pakistan feel like they have been betrayed by the Afghan royal family. Especially when Afghanistan got its independence.

The tribal Mullah's were requested to form lashkars and to attack British garrisons all across tribal area. Due to their push, the British Empire was forces to broker a deal with Amanullah Khan so the tribes can be stopped from crossing over to Punjab.

Amanullah Khan agreed to settle. He ordered everyone to stop fighting to receive his independence in return.

Only problem with this deal was, that he left those tribes who sacrificed their sons to be dealt with by the British empire.

He did not protect them or demand their rights. All he did is accept the Durand Line so he could get away with and enjoy his power and sovereignty.

Due to this decision, the British Empire started using their airplanes from WW1 and dropped firebombs all acros tribal area and massacred thousands of people burning entire villages and even killing their cattles.

They feel betrayed and backstabbed by the Kabul government. So they never really feel they should trust Afghan government.

So the tribal Taliban want an Islamic state within Pakistan before reunification with Afghanistan.

They do not desire to redraw the map for as long as the government remains the same.

And I can imagine why they feel this way.

For them, the biggest concern is the apostate regime in Pakistan. Not the Durand Line.

Almost every Islamic movement desires an Islamic state with Shariah law before any other matter.

Redrawing maps and shifting borders is not the highest necessity.

Islam is not about borders and countries and nation states. You should study Maqasid us-Shariah. Objectives of Shariah and see where the priorities of Muslims are suppose to be.

Sadly, the secularists and Nationalists always tend to talk about matters which have less importance.

The goal we are trying to achieve as Muslims is to please Allah. And there is no verse in Quran or hadeeth that says that we should first create new nation states and settle old land disputes before implementing Shariah.

We can move to land disputes and border issues only when we have Islamic laws.

And just to give you a note, Amirul Momineen Mullah MOhammed Omar never accepted the Durrand Line.

[randolph85]

well since islamic aspirations are not meant to be based on nationalist concepts, i dont see how the nation state of afghanistan figures into this. even when pakistan was created, afghanistan was small, weak, and powerless. also, the pashtun areas of the new pakistan were a small minority, relatively underdeveloped and were not an economic factor in what should of been an emerging new state.

as for amanullah khan. his war was fought with the good will of the tribesmen on his payroll. i dont think anyone with any sense thought it would escalate any further than official independence of the afghan state. tribesman with muskets vs planes with bombs never turns out well.

regarding the paki taliban. where is ur evidence for their desire to join afghanistan? i have never heard of their official policy being to destroy the state, and all the afghan taliban says is that whatever happens in pakistan is their own national issue.

as for omar not accepting the durand line, neither did rabbani, karzai, the communists, or daoud khan, or zahir shah. like omar, i respect none of them. none of these entities have been in a do or die position to accept the line, and accepting it would be bad pr. its like saying mullah omar never sold herat to the iranians when no other leader did either.


still, i have not gotten an explanation why there are no islamic entities in pakistan today that are officially opposed to the concept of the pakistani state.

[شمله ور خراساني]

well since islamic aspirations are not meant to be based on nationalist concepts, i dont see how the nation state of afghanistan figures into this.

The Islamic aspirations of Afghans are to eventually help to create a Khilafa. Both, Taliban and Hizb e Islami want to contribute to the creation of a Khilafa. If you read Taliban literature, there is a significant reference to the ultimate goal.

even when pakistan was created, afghanistan was small, weak, and powerless. also, the pashtun areas of the new pakistan were a small minority, relatively underdeveloped and were not an economic factor in what should of been an emerging new state.

Yes, being economically weak does not mean one have to settle for less and be content with a system that is totally against Islam.

as for amanullah khan. his war was fought with the good will of the tribesmen on his payroll.

Wrong. He never paid any tribe a dime. In fact, when many tribes suffered losses and damages due to his policy he didn't even wanted to meet the tribal elders after he received his independence.

But when the Ghaljay tribes and the Tajiks created an uprising against him in the late 1920's then he sent for those very same tribal elders he refused to meet to beg them to help him and his Kandahari tribes so he can return back to Kabul and capture his throne.

i dont think anyone with any sense thought it would escalate any further than official independence of the afghan state. tribesman with muskets vs planes with bombs never turns out well.

You don't think so, but read British history of India. They were trembling in Dehli when the first few garrisons were ransacked and over 5.000 British troops were massacred in Waziristan, Derra Ismail Khan, Jhob and adjacent areas.

The tribes considered Amanullah as their ruler and they accepted his order to fight. Because he said that he wanted an independent Afghanistan. |For the tribesmen on the other side of the Durrand Line, Afghanistan was all the way to Attock. Not the Durrand Line. This is why they accepted his orders and obeyed him. They did not sacrifice their lives so that they remain slaves of British India and Amanullah Khan could have his own independence.

regarding the paki taliban. where is ur evidence for their desire to join afghanistan?

Where did I make such a claim? They want an Islamic state in Pakistan. Thats what I said. And if you listen to their talks and their interviews, they always emphasize the need for an Islamic government in Pakistan.

Furthermore, they have reiterated on numerous occasions that they do not recognize any borders between the Muslim lands. And they justified their attacks on Americans on Afghan soil by saying that they do not recognize the political borders.

You should watch their videos and listen to their talks when they discuss Pakistani politics. Their main problem is the Pakistani kufri government. This is why they are fighting the government.

And the Pakistani Taliban are not the only Islamic movment against the government. There are many other groups, scholars, individuals, Islamic movements who all have one common interest. Namely the overthrow of the Pakistani secular government.

There is plenty of literature and talks on this subject in Urdu & Pashto on Youtube and other websites.

i have never heard of their official policy being to destroy the state,

LOL. That's odd. They attack naval bases, ISI head quarters, army garrisons and create their own armies and paralel government in the areas controled by them, and yet you say their policy is not to destroy the state?
Did you ever hear Baitullah Mehsud, Hakimullah Mehsud or any other leader of the movement talk? All they say is that the Pakistani state is a state based on Kufr and they desire to establish an Islamic state.

and all the afghan taliban says is that whatever happens in pakistan is their own national issue.

Thats true. Afghans have no business fighting Pakistani government when Afghanistan is occupied by 50 countries. Afghanistan must win its own independence and expel the crusaders. This is the primary objective in Afghanistan for any Muslim.

And the overthrow of the secular government of Pakistan is a convenient matter for not only Afghanistan but the entire region. But why should Afghans use their limited force and abilities to go into the Pakistani soil and fight its government while their own homes are being bombed and their relatives massacred by NATO and Northern Alliance?

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Besides, The Afghan Taliban asked the Pakistani Taliban to help them in Afghanistan so that all the force is focused on expelling NATO. But the Pakistani Taliban said that they were willing to help, but since Pakistan is preventing them and attacking their homes and bombing them, they have to defend themselves. So they fight two wars. One against Pakistani government, and one against NATO in Afghanistan.

as for omar not accepting the durand line, neither did rabbani, karzai, the communists, or daoud khan, or zahir shah. like omar, i respect none of them. none of these entities have been in a do or die position to accept the line, and accepting it would be bad pr. its like saying mullah omar never sold herat to the iranians when no other leader did either.

Comparing Mullah Omar to those people shows your lack of knowledge of your own history and more important, lack of knowledge of Islam.

still, i have not gotten an explanation why there are no islamic entities in pakistan today that are officially opposed to the concept of the pakistani state.

Maybe you should read my posts a few more times.

[آريا]

groups are usually based on geographical considerations. hence, the taliban are mostly pashtun.

so let me rephrase the question, why are there no religious parties against the concept of pakistan? even the paki taliban have not spoken against the concept of the state.

Because of Paki politics. A party in its original form be it religious or nationalist can't win elections in Pakistan. Only when they become corrupted like the current ANP they become acceptable to Pakified degenerates.

In fact at start both Pacha Khan (leader of of ANP) and Abul Ala Maududi (founder of Jumaat e Islami) were against Pakistan.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Randolph as always being the voice of reason against empty emotionalized sloganeers